The Vowel-Points Controversy in the XVI. and XVII. Centuries

STOP

Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.

THE VOWEL-POINTS CONTROVERSY IN THE XVI. AND
XVII. CENTURIES.

By Eev. B. Pick, Ph. D.,

Allegheny, Pa.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, but the Hebrew char
acter which appears in all existing Hebrew MSS. and printed editions, is not that
which was always used. Another character was employed before the present. A
change was made in the forms of the letters. They were wholly altered from
their first condition. The so-called square character — such as we have it now —
was introduced by Ezra as tradition has it, and the text prepared in these charac-
ters consisted only of consonants and had nothing of those ornaments of the
letters as we now find them in our editions. These ornaments of the letters con-
sisting of signs, points and strokes, partly below, partly above, partly within the
text were the work of the so-called Massorites, and our text is therefore called the
Massoretic text. The preparation of the Massoretic, or standard text, was com-
menced at a very early period and was finally settled in the eleventh century, and
thus it happens that all extant MSS. and printed editions present one and the
same text. But it was not always so. A comparison of our present Hebrew text
with the Samaritan Pentateuch and with the Alexandrian version shows that
other versions were current in the pre-christian period, for otherwise we cannot ac-
count for the variations found in the Samaritan when compared with the Hebrew,
in the Greek when compared with the Samaritan, in the Hebrew when compared
with both. " And these variations" as Dillmau observes, " are not to be set down
to the charge of carelessness or willfulness on the part of the Hellenistic Jews
and Samaritans, as was the old opinion, but are explained by the less weight then
put upon exact uniformity of the text, and the existence of the mistakes in current
copies. And when the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch agree in good
readings, and still oftener in bad ones, against the Massoretic text, we are to con-
clude that these readings were spread by many copies current among the Palestine
Jews, and are therefore not to look upon them as offensive, or thoroughly unreli-
able." The Massoretic text was not known to the Talmud, i. e. as far as vowels
and accents are concerned, nor to Jerome who translated from a'n unvowelled
text ; and the unpointed synagogue rolls of the present day are survivals of an-
cient custom. Upon what principles the work of the Massorites was done, we are
not able to say, but it must be admitted that the text which they present is the
best and most reliable, although not absolutely correct. The similarity of letters

The Vowel-points Contboversy. 151

would easily lead to a mistaken reading, and the Talmud (Shabbath fol. 103, col. 2)
calls attention to a number of letters which must not be interchanged. From the
Talmud we also learn many other things which are interesting in other respects.
According to the Talmud, the rentateuch contains 5,888 verses, the Psalms 8
more, and Chronicles 8 less. We call this computation the Babylonian, because
the Talmud was the outcome of the learning of the Babylonian Jews. But the
Massoretic work Dikduke ha-Teamim (ed. by Baer and Strack, Leipzig 1879) counts
the verses in the Pentateuch 5,845, in the Prophets 9,294 and in the Hagiographa
8,064, so that the famous Jewish critic Norzi in his commentary on Levit. Tin.
8 expresses his surprise at the difference between the Talmud and the Massorah,
and hopes that Elijah the Tishbite will make everything clear.

The various readings so frequently found in the margins and footnotes of our
Hebrew Bibles known as K«ri and K'thibh i. e. read and written ; K'thibh w'lo
K'ri i. e. written but not read ; K'ri w'lo K'thibh i. e. read but not written, the
Talmud (Nedarim fol. 37, col. 2) traces back to Moses on Sinai. According to the
Massorah as printed in the first Rabbinic Bible, the sum total of K'ris and
K'thibhs, occurring in the Bible, is 1,359; but the number is larger, as may be
seen from table vm. appended to the several parts of the Hebrew Bible edited by
Baer and Delitzsch.

The Talmud mentions instances in which the scribes removed a superfluous
v' which has crept into the text and which e. g. has been erroneously prefixed to
achar in Gen. xvin. 5 ; xxiv. 55 ; Num. xxxi. 2. But upon examining the an-
cient versions we find that the Samaritan, Syriac, Septuagint and the Jerusalem
Targum still have the ancient reading u'ac/iar. This removal is called 'ittur
Soferim.'

In the most ancient Jewish writings, such as Mechilta (a commentary on Ex-
odus, first probably compiled about 90 A. D.), Sifri (a commentary on Numbers
and Deuteronomy, compiled by Bab 219-247 A. D.), Tanchuma (a commentary on
the Pentateuch, compiled by Tanchuma ben-Abha, who flourished about 440
A. D.) mention is made of the tikkune Soferim or "emendations of the scribes,"
according to which eighteen alterations were introduced into the text, in order to
remove anthropomorphisms and other infelicities of expression.

From these few statements it will be evident that our Massoretic text can
neither claim absolute completeness nor infallibility, as was held by the Buxtorfs
and their party, in the interest of the then prevalent views of inspiration. In
order to ascertain the true text, we must make use of such critical helps which
lead to that end, for as Canon Cheyne {Prophecies of Isaiah (3d ed.) vol. II., p. 240)
observes : " the true spiritual meaning of the Scriptures can only be reached
through the door of the letter, and the nearer we approach to a correct reading of
the text, the more vivid will be our apprehension of the sacred truths which it
conveys." The controversy whose history we give in the following pages has

152 Hbbraioa.

yielded good fruits. It was a hard struggle, but the truth prevailed. And says
the late Prof. Delitzsch in the introduction to his last edition of Genesis : " to
give up traditional views which cannot stand the test of truth, is a sacred duty, a
part of the fear of God."

After these introductory remarks we proceed to give the history of the con-
troversy.

The study of Hebrew was cultivated but very little in the Christian Church
in the centuries preceding the Reformation. Of the earlier writers " the name of
Jerome stands out conspicuously, alike upon the roll of his predecessors and of
his successors, until the time of the Reformation, as by far the most distinguished,
perhaps the only Christian, writer of antiquity who was qualified to make an in-
dependent use of his Hebrew acquirements, and to whom the whole Christian
Church will ever owe an inestimable debt of gratitude for the preservation of so
large a portion of the results of Origen's labors and still more for that unrivalled
and imperishable work which has been not inaptly described as having 'remained
for eight centuries the bulwark of Western Christianity.' ' n Since Jerome stud-
ied the Hebrew ex professo, he is the most important witness as to the state of the
Hebrew text during the fourth and fifth centuries. From his writings it is obvi-
ous that Jerome was unacquainted with the present vowel-signs, for he never
mentions them, and whenever he has occasion to describe words, he describes
them according to the consonants alone. His usual expressions, accordingly, are
scribitur and scriptum, legitur and ledum,— the former two referring to the letters,
the latter two to the pronunciation — and the contrast implied indicating that
while the consonants were written, the vowels were supplied by traditional usage.
With this is connected the remark, that the " same word," i. e. the same letters
(idem verbum or sermo iisdem Uteris scriptus) might be read (legi) — that is pro-
nounced, and consequently understood (intelligi) — in various ways, according to
the connection (pro qualitate loci or loeorurn, pro consequentia, prout locus etordo
flagitaverint), or according to the judgment of the reader (pro arbitrio legentis,
voluntate lectorum), or the vernacular of the country (pro varietate regionum); and,
on the contrary, two words (utrumque verbum as to signification), were written
with the same letters. Such words he calls ambiguous (ambigua), and this pecu-
liarity of the Hebrew mode of writing its ambiguity (ambiguitas sermonis). 2

1 Cf . art. Hebrew Learning in Smith and Wace Diet, of Christian Biography.

2 Epist. 125 ad Damasum: " Idem sermo et iisdem Uteris scriptus diversas apud eos et voces
et intellegentias habet, c. c. pastores et amatnres iisdem Uteris scribuntur Bes Ain Jod Mem (D'.JJI):
sed pastores rolm leguntur, amatores reim.— Isa. ix. 7 OD^): apud Hebraeos "Ol quod per tres
literas consonantes scribitur, Daleth, Beth, Bes; pro locorum qualitate si legatur aabar, 'ver-
bum' signifleat; si deber, 'mortem et pestilentiam;' and Jer. ix. 21 03^1) verbum Hebraicum
quod tribus Uteris, Daleth, Beth, Res, scribitur— ' vocales' enim in medio non habet pro conse-
quentia et legentis arbitrio si legatur dabar ' sermonem' signiflcat, si deoer ' mortem,' si daooer
' loquere.'— Isa. ii. 22 (ilSDS) verbum Hebraicum vel inpufia dicitur i. e. exeelsum vel certe <n quo,
et iisdem litteris scribitur Beth etc., ac pro locorum qualitate si voluerimus legere 'in quo' dici-
mus bammeh sin autem 'exeelsum' bamah.— Isa. xv. 7 (D'aiyri), xxi. 13 GTJ?); Jer. xvii. 9 (tyiJK

The Vowel-points Controversy. 153

It is from such ambiguity that he mainly derives the numerous " deviations
and mistakes of the older translators" — especially of the Seventy — and excuses
(ambiguitate decepti) ;' n he blames them however for inconsequence, by translating
one word occurring in the same connection in two passages differently, or where
their version does violence to the letters, or interchanges words whose letters have
no similarity to one another.

In giving his own version from the Hebrew, he appears sometimes undecided
which is the right reading, and gives the deviations of former translators without
making known his own judgment. Occasionally he indicates his opinion by melius
or magis, as if one reading were more probable than another, because better suited
to the connexion. Such cases however are the exceptions, for he is usually
decided, and where he does give the grounds of his decision, he rests his exposi-
tion on these sources : a, he is often guided by the connexion alone ; b, the au-
thority of his better predecessors, particularly Symmachus 2 and Theodotion? per-
haps the majority of them in opposition to the Septuagint, determines him ; c,
above all, the authority of the Jewish rabbins by whom he was instructed (Jewish
tradition) guided his translations.

Since Hupfeld has collected a number of passages from Jerome's writings in
illustration of what has been stated above we refer to his essay I. c. p. 83 sq.

The result of our investigation, as far as Jerome is concerned, is a purely neg-
ative one. 4

The next authority for examination is the Talmud, that Jewish cyclopaedia,
which contains all and everything. But in this work, also, we have no trace of writ-
ten vowel-signs or accents, as some have supposed, nor does it contain even the in-
cipient features of a written vowel system. The formulas, so frequently occurring
in the Talmud " read not so but so," or " there is a reason for decision according
to the mikrah and the massorah," have often been quoted as a proof that in the

enoseh et anuseh) ; Hos. xi. 10 (D'O maim et miam) ; Mich. vii. 12 012? D) de Tyro and munttior. The
same may also be said of the letter B% which is everywhere regarded as one letter and is pro-
nounced either s or sh. Thus Hab. iii. 4 verbum DB' pro qualitate loci et posuit (Dt?) intelligitur
et ibi (Dty) ; Gen. xli. 29 (j?3K?) et juramentum CH)}^) et septem (.JJDE?) et satietas et abundantia
(#320 prout locus et ordo flagitaverint, potest in'telligi." Cf. Hupfeld, Kritisehe Beleuchtung
in Studien u. Kritiken 1830 p. 81 sq.

l Isa.xxiv.23 (ills'? — HiStl) pro lunaet so! LXX. transtulerunt laterem etmurum.

Quae autem erroris causa sit sequentia, verba monstrabunt: sol lingua hebraica dicitur hamma,
luna lebana. In praesente loco igltur LXX. pro luna etc. transtulerunt laterem hebr. lebena
<ni2~l) 'verbl ambiguitate decepti;' rursum pro hamma posuerunt homa (HDli).— Isa. xxv. 5
( try 2) : quare LXX. pro ' invio' vel ' siti' verterunt in Sion : ' error perspicuus est ob similitu-
dinem verbi' Sajon et Sion, quod iisdem signatur elementis (cf . xxxii. 2) .—Hos. xiii. 8 quaerimus
quare LXX. pro fumario, quod Theodotion nairvothxov locustas interpretati sunt. Apud He-
braeos 'locusta' et 'fumarium' iisdem Uteris scribitur Aleph etc., quod si legatur arbe locusta
dicitur, si arobba fumarium. Cf. also Amos iii. 11 on "IX (LXX. and Aquila Tvpoc = IS) and iv.
13 on irW — Da , as given by Hupfeld, I. c, p. 83.

2 See my art. s. v. in MeClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia.

3 See my art. s. v. ibidem.

* Cf . Hupfeld in Studien unci Kritiken, 1833.

154 Hbbraica.

time of the Talmud the text of the Scripture had been firmly settled in respect of
the vowels no less than of the consonants. But this is a mistake. The formula
"read not so, but so," relates solely to fanciful and playful changes of words in
the text, so that witty applications may be made of them. Thus e. g. read not
7|*J3 " thy sons," but f|*J3 thy builders;" or read not DJJH " and prepare," but
OJjn " and there," etc. It furnishes no proof that the Talmud recognizes written

T :

vowel-marks. The formula " there is a reason for decision according to the mikrah
and the massorah" is used when two Talmudic doctors, disputing, base their differ-
ent opinions on the same word in the text, but according to a different reading of
it, the one being called mikrah, i. e. ecclesiastical or canonical reading ; the other
massorah, i. e. apocryphal or assumed one. The opposition between the two re-
corded in the Talmud shows that written vowel-signs were then unknown. Both
refer to the vocalization, but in such a way as proves an unvowelled text, afford-
ing scope for interpretations deviating from the established pronunciation. Noth-
ing can be adduced from the Talmud to prove the existence of the vowel-points ;
they are post-Talmudic and belong to a period posterior to the Talmud, since the
treatise Sopherim, 1 whose redaction belongs to the ninth century, knows nothing
of the vowels.

Prom what has been said, it is evident that Jerome knew no vowel-points,
any more than the Talmud, and that the Alexandrian translators did not
use a vocalized text. The Hebrew vocalization was, no doubt, suggested by
the example of the Arabian, or more probably the Syriac writing ; but, though it is
analogous to that of the kindred languages, it is considerably richer and more
elaborate. When the Hebrew vocalization was introduced, has long been a mat-
ter of uncertainty and dispute. According to a statement on a scroll of the law,
which may have been in Susa from the eighth century, Moses the punctuator was
the first who, in order to facilitate the reading of the Scriptures for his pupils,
added vowels to the consonants, a practice in which he was followed by his son
Judah, the corrector or reviser. These were the beginnings of a full system of
Hebrew points, the completion of which has by tradition been associated with the
name of the Karaite Acha or Achai of Irak, living about 550, and which comprised
the vowels and accents, dagesh and rapheh, K'ri and K'lhibh. It was, from its
local origin, called the Babylonian or Assyrian system, or the Eastern system.
The peculiarity of this system consists in having signs of a different shape to rep-
resent the vowels. Another peculiarity of this system is that the vowels are
almost uniformly placed above the letters. It is therefore designated the superlin-

1 Sopherim is the title of a Talmudic treatise, consisting of S-'l chapters, and divided into three
parts, the first of which has given the title Sopherim to the whole treatise. Part first, compris-
ing chs. i.-v., contains directions for the copyist of the holy writings; part second, comprising
ohs. vi.-ix., contains the Massoretic part of the book; part third, comprising chs. x.-xxi., treats
of the laws for the public reading in general and of the holy days. On the Talmud in general,
see my art. s. v. in MCclintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia.

The Vowel-points Controversy. 155

eary system, and is best exhibited in the Prophetarum Posteriorum Codex Babylo-
nicus Petropolitanus (ed. H. Strack, Petropoli 1876).

Almost simultaneously with these endeavors, the scholars of Palestine, espe-
cially of Tiberias, worked in the same direction, and here rabbi Mocha, 1 a disciple
of Anan the Karaite, and his son Moses fixed upon another system of vocalization
(about 570) distinguished as that of Tiberias and the Palestinian, or Western sys-
tem. It is far more complete and extensive, and exhibits more sharply the nice-
ties of the traditional pronunciation and intonation of the text than the Babylo-
nian system, with which it competed, and was ultimately adopted by all the Jews.
Even the Karaites, in spite of their antagonism to the rabbanites, at least, in 957
A. D., abandoned the older signs and adopted the Palestinian system of vocal-
ization.

Thus much for the origin of the vowel-points, which during the 16th and
17th centuries were the cause of the fiercest controversy that agitated the republic
of learning. Some centuries before, the dispute about the antiquity and origin of
the Hebrew vowels commenced, and their authority was questioned. As early as
the 9th century, Natronai II. ben Hilai, who was gaon or spiritual head of the
academy in Sora (859-869), in reply to the question whether it is lawful to put the
points to the synagogal scrolls of the Pentateuch, distinctly declared that " since
the law, as given to Moses on Sinai, had no points, and the points are non Sinaitic
(i. e. sacred), having been invented by the sages, and put down as signs for the
reader ; and, moreover, since it is prohibited to us to make any additions from
our own cogitations, lest we transgress the command ' Ye shall not add' etc.
(Deut. iv. 2); hence we must not put the points to the scrolls of the law." 2

Such being the historical evidence, it is indeed surprising that the antiquity
of the vowel-points should have been defended not only by Jews, but also by
Christians and cause one of the fiercest controversies, to which a German Jewish
scholar Elias Levita (f 1549) gave the greatest impulse. Up to the time of Levita,
the opinion prevailed in the synagogue, that the vowel-points were either given to
Adam in Paradise, or communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai, 3 or were fixed by
Ezra and the so-called Great Synagogue. 4 This view was deemed all the more

1 See Pinsker, Likute Kadmonioth (Vienna 1860) p. 62, appendix; Graetz, Oeschichte der Juden
vol. V., p. 552; Furst, Gesehichte des KarUerthums 1. 15 sq.. 134 sq.

2 The original is quoted by Luzzatto in Kerem Chemed III, 200 from the Vitry Machsor, or a
ritual of the synagogue of Vitry, in Prance, compiled about 1100 by Rabbi Sincha of Vitry, a dis-
ciple of Rashi, and obtained its name from the place in which the compiler lived. It not only
comprises the whole cycle of the daily and festival services, but various legal and ritual laws
from ancient documents. An account of the MS. of this Machsor (Brit. Museum Add. 27,200,
27,201) has been given by W. Wright in ' Journal of Sacred Literature,' July 1866, p. 356 sq.— When
the younger Buxtorf, who took an active part in the controversy, asserts that up to Levita's
time the antiquity of the vowel-points was taken for granted (Tractatus, pt. I, cap. 2, p. 3) he is
certainly wrong.

s Furst, I. c, p. 113.

4 Buxtorf, Tractatus, p. 312 sq.

156 Hebkaica.

orthodox since the famous Zohar, the sacred code of the Kabbalists, declared that
" the letters are the body, and the vowel-points the soul : they move with the mo-
tion and stand still with the resting of the vowel-points, just as an army moves
after its sovereign" (vol. I., fol. 15, col. 2); and that " the vowel-points proceeded
from the Holy Spirit which indited the Sacred Scriptures, and that far be the
thought to say that the scribes made the points, since even if all the prophets had
been as great as Moses, who received the law direct from Sinai, they could not
have had the authority to alter the smallest point in a single letter, though it be
the most insignificant in the whole Bible" (on Song of Songs 57 6 ed. Amsterdam,
1701).

Of course so long as the Kabbalah was believed to be a genuine revelation
from God, and Simeon ben Jocha'i (of the 2d century) was believed to be the au-
thor of the Zohar, to whom God communicated all the mysteries, it was but a
matter of course to believe in the antiquity and divinity of the vowel-points.
But those, who implicitly followed the statement of the Zohar, did overlook the
fact that there must have already existed a difference of opinion concerning the
antiquity of the vowel-points, otherwise it would not have been necessary to de-
fend the idea of the antiquity of the vowels with peculiar energy. And that such
must have been the case we may infer from the fact that Christian writers before
Levita, as we shall see farther on, who had Jews as teachers of Hebrew, did not
believe in the antiquity of the vowel-points. But in a critical age like ours, no
high authority is attached to the Zohar itself, because it has been shown that its
author was not Simeon ben Jochai, but Moses de Leon 1 of the 13th century.
Whatever Christian writers thought of, or wrote concerning, the vowel-points be-
fore the appearance of Levita's epoch-making work, entitled Massoreth ha-Masso-
reth was of little consequence to the Synagogue. When, however, this work was
published at Venice in 1538, there was great consternation in the camp of Israel.
Elias Levita (born about 1468, died 1549) was looked upon as the chief Jewish
teacher of the age, and his denying the divine origin and antiquity of the vowel-
points was regarded not only as heterodoxy, but as a most unpardonable sin. As
Levita's book was translated into Latin by Sebastian Minister, within twelve
months after its publication, it soon became known to the Christian world, and
caused a controversy which lasted for two centuries. Levita's argument, which
is fully developed in the third introduction, is as follows, according to Ginsburg's
translation : At the very outset Levita denies the Sinaitic origin of the vowel-
points. What the author of the book Semadar, Levi ben Joseph, says concerning
the antiquity of the vowel-points (for which he refers to Deut. xxvn, 8), or what
the author of the book Horayoth ha-Kore 2 says, needs either no refutation or is

1 Cf. my art. Moses de Leon in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia.

3 Ginsburg, on the authority of Steinschneider, ascribes this book to Ibn Balaam, who flour-
ished in the 11th century; but see Wickes, A Treatise on the Accentuation, p. 104 sq.

The Vowel-points Controversy. 157

vain and wrong. And when Moses the Punctuator,! says— that the points were
given on Sinai, but were forgotten again, till Ezra came and revealed them,
Levita replies that either one or the other alternative is left. We must either say
that God revealed to Moses the forms of the points and accents in fire, and that
Moses showed these forms to Israel, and did not affix them to the words, — in
which case the Israelites would have derived no benefit from seeing them ; or we
must say, that he did affix them to the words, and come to the conclusion that he
wrote another codex, besides our Pentateuch, with points and acccents, and recited
it with them till they knew it, and that, afterwards, each one who wished copied it.
In this case the question arises, How could the points and accents be forgotten, un-
less we say that all these copies were afterwards lost, which is altogether incredible.
This is also the opinion of Aben Ezra, 2 who, in his grammar entitled Purity says,
"There are many commentators who maintain that those who divided the verses
committed blunders ; but this is not correct. But I am perfectly astonished at it,
for how could the divider commit blunders if he was Ezra the scribe ? In short,
after the divider there were none so wise as he was, since we see that, throughout
the whole of the Scriptures, he never made a pause which is not in its proper
place." Thus far his remark. But I am astonished at his speaking here of one
divider : there is no doubt that there were many dividers, as I shall show here-
after, and since Aben Ezra himself speaks of them in the plural. At any rate, his
words here show that he was not of opinion that the accents were given on Sinai.
I have also found the following words in a book called the Purity of the Language
(Zach Sephataim): " We must know that the points were given on Sinai ; not that
they were put on the Tables of Stone ; but, when the Lord spake in the holy lan-
guage, those who heard him could distinguish between the vowel-points and sylla-
bles, both short and long." The learned author of the Khosari 3 also remarks
(III. 31) as follows : " The master replied, Doubtless the Pattach, Kametz, Sheber,

Sheva, and the accents were committed to memory and they put the principal

vowels and the accents as marks to indicate which was received from Moses by
tradition. What thinkest thou about it ? that they have received the Bible first
with divisions into verses, then with vowels, then with accents, then with defini-
tions respecting the preservation of plene and defective, and even the exact number
of letters V" Prom this we see, adds Levita, that he was not of opinion that
Moses wrote them, but that it was only preserved in memory what Moses' pronun-
ciation was, viz. what distinction he made between the pronunciation of Kametz

1 Flourished about the middle of the 13th century, and is the author of Treatise embodying
the Rules about the Points of Hebrew Scriptures.

2 Died about 1176.

* I. e. Judah ha-Levt, a distinguished Spanish philosopher, died about 1180 or 1142. The work
referred to is a defense of Judaism against Christians and Mohammedans. It was of late pub-
lished in the Arabic original and Hebrew translation by H. Hirschfeld, Leipzig 1887, who also
published a German translation, Breslau 1885.

158 Hebbaica.

and Pattach between Tzere and Segol, etc. Would that this sage author had ex-
plained to us whom he meant by " they put," whether the men of the Great Syna-
gogue, or the Massorites. I think that it refers to the Massorites."! Levita also
mentions David Kirnchi in his favor, who speaks of " inventors of the points, who
made a distinction between the singular third person preterit and the participle,
as they are pronounced alike." These authorities, and the very fact that up to
this day the Synagogue Scrolls have neither vowel-points nor accents, he adduced
in favor of his argument that the vowel-points were not Sinaitic. He goes even
farther and says that they did not exist either before Ezra or in the time of Ezra,
or after Ezra till the close of the Talmud. For this theory he prefers the following
arguments : In the first place neither the Talmud nor the Hagadah, or the Midrash
mention or make any allusion whatever to the vowel-points or accents. The ex-
pression : " Do not read so, but so," and " there is a solid root for the reading of
the text, and there is a solid root for the traditional pronunciation," only show
that there were no vowel-points. In the second place, he refers to the Talmud
(Baba Bathra, fol. 21, col. 2) where it is said, " Joab slew his teacher because he
had performed the work of the Lord deceitfully in reading to him sachar (i. e.
males), instead of secher (i. e. the memory, Deut. xxv. 19)." "Now is it credi-
ble," asks Levita, " that he would have attempted to read sachar, if they had
had the points, and the word in question had been pointed secher V" In the third
place, he refers to Chagiga, fol. 6, col. 2, where the passage " they brought burnt
offerings and killed sacrifices," etc. (Exod. xxiv. 5) is discussed ; Mar Sutra re.
marks, this discussion is necessary to know where to place the dividing accent.
Proof enough that they had no accents. In the fourth place, he calls attention to
the fact that almost all the names of both the vowel-points and the accents are
not Hebrew, but Aramean and Babylonian, whereas the commandments given on
Sinai were in Hebrew. To him it is undoubtedly true that the law which Moses
put before the children of Israel was a plain codex, without accents and without
points, and even without the division of verses, since according to the opinion of
the Kabbalists, the whole law is like one verse, or as some say, like one word.
And as for the K'ri and K'thibh and the variations between the Easterns and
the Westerns, they have nothing to do with the points, but refer to the variations
between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, which were unquestionably written down
after the invention of the points and accents. And says Levita, if it be asked :
How was it possible, before the invention of the vowel-points to teach a child the
correct reading from a book which was not pointed ¥ he would say that the sacred
tongue was the language which all spoke, since they had no other language till
they were led captive from their land. When, therefore, a child was being taught

1 According to the connection, there can he no doubt that "they put" refers to the men of
the Great Synagogue.

The Vowel-points Controversy. 159

to know the letters, his teacher read with him from a book each verse two or
three times, till he was familiar with it, and the child was conversant with the
language ; he could easily remember the words which he read, and whenever he
met them again he read them without difficulty. You, therefore, see that it is
possible to read without points. The same was the case among us, prior to the
invention of the points, and it continued till the time after the close of the Tal-
mud, which took place in 3989 of the creation = 436 after the destruction of the
second Temple. Since then the sacred tongue began gradually to disappear, till
the time of the Massorites, who are the men of Tiberias. They were great sages,
and thoroughly conversant with the Scriptures and the structure of the language,
more so than all the other Jews who lived in that generation, and none like them
have existed since. This is also attested by Rabbi Jona (ibn Ganach), the Gram-
marian, in his treatise on the Quiescent Letters, which is as follows : " The distinc-
tion between the resh with and without the dagesh was well understood by the
men of Tiberias, but not by us, for they knew better the purity of the language
than all other Jews." Thus also, says Aben Ezra in the book Purity: " This is
the manner of the sages of Tiberias, and they are the foundation, for from them
were the Massorites, and from them we have received all our vowel-points."
Levita comes then to this conclusion: "I have made it evident that the vowel-
points and accents were neither given on Sinai, nor were they invented by the
men of the Great Synagogue, but that they are the work of the Massorites, who
flourished at a later period. Indeed, there were hundreds and thousands of Mas-
sorites, and they continued generation after generation for many years. No one
knows the time when they commenced, nor when they will end in future." Thus
far Levita.

A refutation of Levita's book was undertaken by the Jewish writer Azariah
de Rossi, 1 in 1574, who in his work entitled Meor Enayim or " Light of the Eyes"
derived the vowel-points from Adam but in such a manner that they were twice
forgotten but twice restored, (once by Ezra and the Massorites). Moses did not
punctuate the copy of the Law which he wrote, in order to give room to the oral
tradition. The existence of the vowel-points, De Rossi thinks is indicated in the
Talmud (Nedarim, fol. 37, col. 2), 2 in the cabbalistic works called Bahir 3 and
Zohar; he appeals to Jerome (JEpist. ad Evagrium 126),* to Deut. xxvii, 8; to the

1 He was born at Mantua about 1614 and died 1577. The work referred to consists of three
parts, which are fully described in my art. s. v. Rossi Azariah in McClintock and Strong's Cyclo-
paedia.

2 Here the passage Nehem. viii. 8 is thus explained : "and they read in the book, in the law
of God," means the original text; " explaining it" means the Chaldee paraphrase; " and gave the
same" means the division of the verses; "and caused them to understand the Scripture" means
the dividing accents or Massorah.

» This book is generally ascribed to Nehunya ben ha-Kanah of the first century, but it is a
later product.

* Because Jerome says : " it matters not whether it be called salem or salim, since the He-
brews very seldom (perraro) used the vowel letters in the middle," de Rossi deduces from perraro
their existence and occasional use.

160 Hebraica.

nature of all languages, especially the Hebrew. The high antiquity of the vowel-
points was also advocated by Archevolti (of the 16th cent.) in his grammatical
treatise Arugath ha-Bosem or Trellis for Aromatic Plants (Venice 1602). He be-
lieves that the vowel-points were given to Moses, who transmitted them orally
till at last they were fixed by necessity. The letters are the body, the points the
spiritual soul. Thus far the synagogue.

What tuas the attitude of the Church towards the vowel-points question? Great,
it is true, was the impulse given by Levita. But long before Levita, voices were
already heard -which spoke of the novelty of the vowel-points, so that Buxtorf is
certainly wrong when he says that before Levita no one denied the antiquity of
the vowel-points.

The earliest witness against the antiquity of the vowel-points is Baymond
Martini, member of the commission appointed by Clement IV. (1264), to examine
the charges brought against the Talmud, and author of Pugio fidei, 1 which he
completed in 1278. In this work, which was first published in 1642, then in 1687,
he denies the antiquity of the vowel-points, the invention of which he ascribes to
two rabbis Asher and Naphtali. The passage in question which is properly a
criticism on Hosea ix. 12, runs thus: " Caeterum sciendum, quod nee Moyses
punetavit legem, unde Judaei non habent earn cum punctis, i. e. cum vocalibus
scriptam in votulis suis ; nee aliquis ex prophetis punetavit librum suuin; sed duo
Judaei, quorum unus est dictus Nephtali, alter vero Ben Aseher, totum vetus
Testamentum punctasse leguntur ; quae quidem puncta cum quibusdam virgulis
sunt loco vocalium apud eos : cumque venissent ad locum istum, et secundum
orthographiam debuissent punctare **11JJO inearnatione mea, punctaverunt *"11D]3
in recessu meo ut opus incarnationis removerent a Deo." 2

The next writer is Nicholaus de Lyra (t 1340), who, after quoting Baymond
Martini on Hosea ix. 12, remarks that the vowel-points were not from the begin-
ning, for this reason the synagogue scrolls are also without vowel-points; at a
very late time, however, the points were invented to facilitate reading. " Se-
cundo," such are his words, " quia puncta non sunt de substantia litterae, res a
principio scipturae f uerunt, unde et rotuli ; qui in synagogis eorum leguntur, sunt
sine punctis ; sed per magnum tempus postea inventa sunt hujus modi puncta, ad
facilius legendum." 3

Next to De Lyra we mention Perez de Valencia (born about 1420 and died Au-
gust 1, 1491), author of " Expositio Psalmorum Davidis" (Leyden 1512, 1514, 1517).
In his Proleg. in Psalmos, tract. 17, he gives the following amusing account of the
origin of the vowel-points : " Post conversionem Constantini Magni videntes Rab-

1 For another point of view on the Pugio, of. Neubauer's arts. Jewish Controversy and the
Pugio Fidei in the Expositor (Febr.-March, 1888).

2 Pars III, diss, in, cap. 21, p. 895. It is to be observed that some MSS., Aquila and Vulgate
read '1103 .

3 PosttUa ad Hoseam 9.

The Vowel-points Controversy. 161

binos omnes Gentiles cum tanta devotione ad fidem Christi converti per totum
orbem, et ecclesiam tanto favore prosperari et etiam quod inflnita multitudo Ju-
daeorum videntes manifestam veritatem per experientiam et miraeula, pariter
convertebantur, et sic deficiebant quaestus et reditus et tributa Eabbinorum, hac
iniquitate commotos magna multitudine congregates fuisse apud Babyloniam
Egypti ; quae dicitur cayre ; ibique quanto magis caute potuerunt, conatos fuisse
falsificare et pervertere Scripturas a vero sensu et significatione. Inde eonflnxisse
supra quinque vel septem puncta loco vocalium, quorum punctorum inventores
fuisse Ravina et Ravasse duos doctores eorum. Addit istos Rabbinos eonflnxisse
libros Talmud." According to De Valencia, the two Rabbis Ravina et Ravasse,
the authors of the Talmud, invented about five or seven points to serve as vowels ;
hence he maintains that no faith is to be placed in the Holy Scriptures, as the
Jews now interpret and punctuate them, or, to use his own words : " ideo nulla
fides adhibenda est scripturae sacrae, sicut hodie habent (Judaei) sic interpretatam
et punctuatam." {ibid, tract. II, fol. 23).

In his De arcanis Catholicae Veritatis (Ortona di Mare 1518), the Franciscan
Petrus Galatinus (f 1532) speaks also of the novelty of the vowel-points, by
means of which the reading and understanding of certain passages has been cor-
rupted (II, 8). To these Levitas before Levita also belongs the Oxford Professor
Bobert Wakefield (t 1537). Twelve years before Levita published his Massoreth,
Wakefield issued his Syntagma de Hebraeorum codicum incorruptione (Oxon. 1526),
in which he denies most decidedly the antiquity of the vowel-points, which were
invented by Ben Asher and Ben JSTaphtali in order to deceive the Christians in
those passages which favor the Christian faith. "Patetur" says he, "puncta
esse novitia postque Hieronymi aetatem excogitata et Judaeos ex additis punctis
et apicibus ansam accipere ut dictionum significantias invertant ac mutent, atque
ita scripturae sensum ad suam perfidiam deploratam quandoque trahere repug-
nantem. Verum utrum duo inter Judaeos sui temporis doctissimi Ben Ascher et
Ben Naphtali, qui ea adinvenerunt, ita per fraudem, quo nos deciperent ac illu-
derent de industria in locis illis, qui ad fidem nostram non spectant, ea scripturae
addiderunt, et odii nostri ac suorum gratia favoreque aliam quam LXX. interpre-
tes secuti sunt lectionem legendique modum, ut illis doctiores quoque viderentur ;
an ex inscitia prope sensuum obscuritatem et ignorantiam id fecerint, aliis judi-
candum relinquo. Hoc certe verissimum esse scio, quod in multis bene ac fideliter
scripturam distinxerint ac punctaverint, eique convenientes et debitos simul ac
tales, quales naturaliter exigebat addiderunt apices."

The novelty of the vowel-points was also advocated by the imperial field-
chaplain Gerhard Veltwyck; 1 Augustinus Steuchus, bishop of Gubio (tl550),
declared them to be a vain invention, whilst Genebrardus of Paris (t 1597), as-

1 See Neudecker in Herzog's B. Eney., 1st ed., v. p. 894.
*4

162 Hbbkaica.

cribed them to Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali. Of the same opinion were more
or less the learned Masius (t 1573),i Bodevianus or de la Boderie (f 1598), Arias
Montanus (f 1598), Masius' co-adjutors in the Antwerp Polyglot, Politianus, etc.,
all of whom are quoted by Cappellus. 2

With a very few exceptions the men of the Beformation period sided with
Levita, and, with al] veneration for the sacred writings of the Old and New Tes-
taments, the Beformers had a freer conception of the sacred writings and writers
than was the case with many in the Post-Beformation period. Thus Luther re-
marks on Genesis xlvii. 31 , where, following the Septuagint and Hebrews xi. 21 he
decides in favor of reading "matteh" instead of "mittah:" at the time of Je-
rome, the points did not as yet exist, and the whole Bible was read without them
(" absque illis tota Biblia lecta sunt"). On Isaiah ix. 6 he designates the points a
new invention, which had no right to have more authority than the simple genu-
ine meaning which was strictly conformable to grammar, as he did not care much
for their (the Jews) grammatical superstition. Similar views he expressed in bis
" Shem ham-mephorash" where he calls the vowel-points " ein neu Menschen-
Fundlein." His exact words are these : " es ist das Vortheil da, dass Moses und
die Propheten nicht haben mit Puncten geschrieben, welche ein neu Menchen-
Fiindlein nach ihrer Zeit aufgebracht, daruni nicht Noth ist dieselbe so steiff
zuhalten, als die Jiiden gerne wollten, sonderlich wo sie dem JSTeuen Testament
zuwider gebraucht werden." When I'feiffer 3 says: "aliter judicasset beatissima
anima, si ipsius tempestate periculosissima sententiae Cappellianae consectaria
fuissent notoria," it is very questionable whether Luther would have thanked him
for this compliment.

According to Zwingli the vowel-points were for a long time not joined to the
consonants, and they were not skilfully invented by the rabbis: ''Hebraeorum
litterae aliquando caruerunt vocalibus notis, quas parum civiliter Babbini flnxe-
runt et supposuerunt ; quod non tantum hinc colligitur, quod et Hieronymus nul-
lam prorsus eorum mentionem facit et vetustissimos eorum codices, etiamsi nunc
habeant eas notas aliquando tamen non habuisse." 4

Calvin agrees in the main with Zwingli, but speaks highly of the labors and
industry of the rabbis, who made these points, which should be used judiciously.
" Scio," he says, " quanta industria veteres scribae puncta excogitarint, cum jam
linguae non esset tarn communis et familiaris usus : qui ergo puncta negligunt
vel prorsus rejiciunt, certe carent omni judicio et ratione, sed tamen habendus
est aliquis delectus." 5

1 Cf. his coram, on Josbua iii. 16.

2 VinMciae Arcani Punctationia, praef . 17-22.

3 Aug. Pfeiffer, Critica Sacra, (Lipsiae 1688), p. 92.

4 Praef atio in E&alam.

5 Comm. ad Zachariam, xi. 1, 9.

The Vowel-points Controversy. 163

Besides we mention Olivetan, (t 1538) who, in the preface to his French Bible
translation, says: "La douce pronuntiation des Ebrieux est sans points, comme
jadis estoit;" Theodor Beza {t 1605), Joseph Scaliger (t 1609), Hugo Grotius
(tl645), John Mercier (f 1562), Paul Fagius (fl549), John Drusius (f 1616), John
Piscator (f 1625), S. Qessner (t 1605), L. Hutter (t 1616), Ludov. de Dieu (t 1642),
/. O. Vossius (fl649), Isaac Vossius (tl688), Dan. Charmier(f '?), W. Schickard
(t 1635) and others. 1

But there were not wanting scholars in the Boman Catholic church, who like
the Protestants rejected the antiquity of the vowel-points, as Bellarmin (t 1621),
Genebrard (fl597), Pineda (fl637), Salmero (fl585), Villalpandus (|1608), Sta-
pleton (tl598), Gregory Martin (fl582), Thomas Harding (fl572);2 but in doing
so, the Romanists had a certain purpose in view. The Protestants, in rejecting
the traditional vowel-points of the synagogue, wished to make the Bible, and
the Bible alone without gloss and without tradition the rule of faith and practice.
The Romanists, however, by rejecting the vowel-points, showed the uncertainty
of the Hebrew text and the necessity of a certain guide to be found in the tradi-
tional interpretation transmitted by the Church of Rome. Thus the Jesuit
Thomas Harding, 3 the antagonist of bishop Jewel argues as follows : " Among the
people of Israel, the seventy elders only could read and understand the mysteries
of the holy books that we call the Bible ; for, whereas the letters of the Hebrew
tongue have no vocals, they only had the skill to read the Scripture by the conso-
nants, and thereby the vulgar people were kept from reading of it by special prov-
idence of God, as it is thought that precious stones should not be cast before
swine; that is to say, such as be not called thereto as being, for their unreverend
curiosity and impure life, unworthy."

While Protestants and Romanists agreed as to the modern origin of the vowel-
points, there were others who contended for their antiquity. In England Fulke (t
1589) wrote against Martin's Discovery of the Manifold Corruptions of the Holy Scrip-
tures by the Heretics of our Days his " Defence of the Sincere and True Translations
of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongues, against the Manifold Cavils, Fri-
volous Quarrels, and Impudent Slanders of Gregory Martin, one of the Readers of
Popish Divinity in the Traitorous Seminary of Rheims" (London, 1583 ; Parker
Society edition, Cambridge, 1843) in which he declares (p. 578) " that seeing our
Saviour hath promised that never a particle of the law shall perish, we may under-
stand the same also of the prophets, who have not received the vowels of the later
Jews, but even of the prophets themselves, howsoever that heathenish opinion
pleaseth you and other papists." Hugh Broughton (f 1612), too, defended the
antiquity of the vowel points in his Daniel: his Chaldee visions and his Hebrew,

1 Cf. Pfeiffer, !. c. p. 81 sq.; Walton, Prolegomena, ed. Dathe (Lipslae 1777), p. 127 sq.

* Cf. Pfeiffer, I. e. p. 81 sq.

8 See Works of John Jewel, bWhop of Salisbury, Parker Society edition, II, 678.

164 Hebraica.

London, 1597, on chap. ix. 26. On the Continent this theory was advocated by
Ant. Eud. Cevalerius or Chevalier (f 1572) in his Rudimenta Ebr. c. 4, p. 23 ; by
Marcus Marinus Brixianus (cf. his " Praefatio thesauri linguae sanctae," 1581),
Wilhelm Postellus (f 1581) in his "De originibus seu de Hebraicae linguae" etc.,
Paris, 1538 ; Junicus of Leyden (t 1602), Amandus Polanus (t 1610 at Basle),
Gomarus (t 1641), more especially by Matthias Flacius and Johannes Gerhard.

Matthias Flacius, the editor of the Magdeburg Centuries, who died in 1575,
felt it his duty to save the antiquity of the vowel-points, as if they were inspired
and as if with their acknowledgement life and blessedness were connected.
Already in his magister dissertation in 1543 he advocated the high antiquity of
the vowel-points, but in his famous work, entitled Clavis Scripturae Sacrae (Basle,
1567), he more fully espoused the cause of the vowel-points on which he wrote a
special section, entitled " On the Originality of the Hebrew Punctuation." In
this section which is found in the 2nd part of his work, he traces the vowel-points
back to Adam. " Mea est sententia," he says, " vocales, seu, ut vocant puncta
una cum consonantibus jam olim (fortasse adhuc ab ipsomet Adamo) inventa om-
nesque sacrarum literarum scriptores integre dilucideque scripsisse, non solum
consonantibus, sed et vocalibus eosque, qui contraria sentiunt, non solum falsa
sentire sed et conscientiis ecclesiaeque, quae tantum certitudine verbi dei aedifl-
catur, perniciosa."

Flacius, it is true, was opposed by Nicol. Oelschlegelius, who wrote his Trac-
tate de punctis contra Flacium (1614), but the voice of the latter was soon drowned,
for no less an authority than the famous dogmatist Johann Gerhard (t 1637) in
his Loci Theolog. I, cap. xiv., xv. not only supported the Flacian view, but even
went a step farther and asserted the inspiration of the vowel-points as an object of
faith. Gerhard's dogmatism as to the inspiration of the vowel-points, reached its
climax in Switzerland as we shall see farther on.

The division among the Protestants seemed very opportune to the Romanists.
Although averse to every and all innovations, the Church of Borne placed herself
on the side of the anti-vowellists, not because she admitted the infallibility of the
Bible, but because it suited her purposes best to use the argument as to the
late origin of the vowel-points in order to confute the claims of the opponents to
whom the Bible was the norma normans in matters of faith and practice. From
the state of things she adduced the uncertainty of the Hebrew text, which can
only be understood by the help of the traditional interpretation of the Church.
The most influential champion of this theory was the Oratorian John Morinus
(1591-1659), who in his JSxercitationes Biblieae de Hebraei Gfraeciqtte textus Sinceri-
tate etc., (Paris, 1633), 1 argued as follows : " the reason why God ordained the
Scriptures to be written in this ambiguous manner (i. e. without points), is because

• For a full description of the contents of this work, cf . Rich. Simon Histoire Critique du Tieux
Testament, Rotterdam, 1685, p. 464 sq. ; Rosenmuller, Handbuch I, 439 sq.

The Vowel-points Conteovbesy. 165

it was his will that every man should be subject to the judgment of the Church,
and not interpret the Bible in his own way. For seeing that the reading of the
Bible is so difficult and so liable to various ambiguities, from the very nature of
the thing, it is plain that it is not the will of God that everyone should rashly and
irreverently take upon himself to explain it ; nor to suffer the common people to
expound it at their pleasure ; but that in those things, as in other matters respect-
ing religion, it is his will that the people should depend upon the priests." 1

To this argument Bichard Simon 2 replies in the following manner: "On
pourra dire aussi, par la meme raison, que Dieu a voulu soumettre les Mahometans
a' leurs docteurs pour l'iiiterpretation de l'Alcoran, parce qui'l est ecrit aussi-bien,
que le texte Hebreu de la Bible, dans une langue, qui n'est pas moins inconstante
d'elle-meme que la langue Hehraique. Mais sans qui'l soit besoin d'avoir recours
au conseil secret de Dieu, il est certain que la langue Hebraique a cela de commun
avec les langues Arabe, Chaldaique et Syriaque, qu'elles sont de leur nature fort
imparfaites, n'ayant pas assez de voyelles, pour rendre la lecture des mots qui les
composent constante et tout-a-fait arretee."

But while the vowellists and Romanists contended for their respective dog-
matic hobby, none of them took the pains of examining Levita's arguments, or of
corroborating or refuting his statements. To be or not to be was the question on
both sides, and, besides, neither of the two parties had sufficient Talmudical learn-
ing and critical tact. The first attempt to meet Levita's book was made, as has
already been stated above, by the learned Azariah de Rossi, in 1574-75, in chap.
lix. part, iii of his work Meor Enayim or the Light of the Eyes, wherein he tried to
prove the antiquity of the vowel-points from the "Zohar" and the "Talmud."
But unhappily De Rossi's work was not so well-known, if known at all, as Levi-
ta's, which was translated into Latin soon after its appearance. However, the man
came to the rescue of the vowellists in no less a person than the famous John
Buxtorf (f 1629), the author of the famous Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum Bab-
binicum, not to mention his Rabbinic Bible and especially his Tiberias seu Com-
mentarius Masorethicus, published in 1620. The title Tiberias is rather curious,
since in his work Buxtorf opposes the view according to which the vowels and
accents were invented by the rabbis of Tiberias. In the preface to the " Tibe-
rias," Buxtorf expresses his surprise how even prominent theologians could have
adopted Levita's view as to the late origin of the vowels. If they were really a
human invention and had only human authority, so that each could read as he
pleased, where would be the certainty and authority of the text ¥ History rather
teaches that the Masorites commenced their work from the time of Ezra. If the
post-talmudic rabbis at Tiberias had produced the Masora, they would have made
themselves guilty of a crime and wickedness. And if it be asked : whence did

i Exercitationes iv. cap. II, sect. 8, p. 198 etc.
a I. c, p. 468; BosenmiiUer, I. c, p. 458.

166 Hbbbaica.

Buxtorf take his reputed historical evidence, it can only be answered : from Jew-
ish tradition. But herein he shows his inconsistency. For the same tradition
which appeared to him so absurd in points of postrbiblical dogmas and institutions
and which he himself so often ridiculed, the same he regards almost as holy when
it concerns the conservation of the letter of the Old Testament, and this, for the
sole reason, because on that point it was of the greatest necessity to him.

As to the famous controversy with Louis Cappell, Buxtorf the father had per-
sonally very little to do with it. For as we have seen from the preface to the
Tiberias, Cappell was not the first who sided with Levita. After all it is very
characteristic for the high reputation which Buxtorf enjoyed among his contem-
poraries, that even after the publication of his Tiberias none dared publicly to
oppose him. Buxtorf became now the leader of the vowellists, and even the Lu-
therans for once forgot their rabies theologica, since Buxtorf 's well-supplied "arm-
ory" had provided for them the weapons which they could use for their own
purposes.

At the time when Buxtorf 's Tiberias was published, Louis Cappell or Capel-
lus, then professor at Saumur was writing his famous work the Arcanum puncta-
tionis, which made him the leader of the anti-vowellists. Cappellus seems to have
been on very friendly terms with Buxtorf. In a letter, dated January 18, 1616,
Cappellus thanks Buxtorf for the very great honor of receiving a letter from him.
When the MS. of the Arcanum had come into Buxtorf 's hands without the knowl-
edge of its author, Capellus sent him the continuation of the Manuscript (July 10,
1622) with many excuses and with the request for his opinion. As Buxtorf kept
quiet, Cappellus asked for the return of his manuscript, December 9, 1622. At
last Buxtorf returned the same with a complimentary letter, requesting at the
same time not to publish, as he was about to examine the matter himself. Evi-
dently the whole business was very disgusting to him and he might have had
strong reasons to believe that the position of the opponent could not so easily
be shaken.

Cappellus sent his manuscript to Erpeuius of Leyden, who in 1608 had pub-
licly expressed the same opinion, as that espoused by Cappellus, and was about to
treat it scientifically. When Erpenius received the manuscript, he was so con-
vinced by its learning and arguments, that, without the sanction of the author, he
published it under the title of Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum (i. e. " The Mys-
tery of the Points Unveiled"), Leyden, 1624, accompanying it with a preface. The
effect of the work was great. 1 The edition was soon exhausted and for 25 years
none undertook to refute the anonymous work.

During this time of anxious suspense the Oratorian John Morinus, of whom
we have already spoken above, had published his Exercitationes. Morinus as well

1 For the contents, of. Rosenmuller, I. c, p. 569 sq.; Diestel, GescMcMe des Alten Testaments in
der ehristlichen Kirehe, p. 337.

The Vowel-points Controversy. 167

as Cappellus denied the antiquity of the vowel-points, but each had a different
aim in view ; for while Cappellus, the Protestant professor, contended against the
authority of Eabbinical tradition, Morinus, the apostate Protestant, contended in
behalf of Romish tradition, placing the same above the Scriptures, which he com-
pared " to a mere nose of wax, to be turned any way," to prove thereby the neces-
sity of one infallible interpretation. 1

To be associated with Morinus, made Cappellus feel rather uncomfortable ;
and, having already been made known to the public as the author of the Arcanum
by Coccejus, Cappellus now openly declared himself as the author in the preface
to the Animadversio ad Novam Davidis Lyram (of Gomarus, 1641). The cause of
his preserving his anonymity was partly because he wished to hear impartial
opinions, partly because he was afraid of his opponents. After, however, his
work had such a success, and after having been encouraged by a man like Eivetus
(t 1651), he openly came forward with his name but in such a manner as to incite
the younger Buxtorf. The latter was not surprised at this revelation, since from
his father he had learned the name of the author. Yet he was not inclined to
oppose Cappellus. His father, said the younger Buxtorf, always regarded the
question as an open one, and conceded to the opposition party the right to be
heard. What he was always inclined to accept, he propounded in his " Tiberias."
After the publication of the Arcanum many of his adherents were wavering, and
entreated him — among others bishop Usher 2 — most earnestly to examine the mat-
ter anew and to defend it. But more important work was to be done, and he de-
clined for the present. In 1629 Buxtorf died. His adherents, surprised at his
delay and inaction, now addressed Buxtorf 's son and successor with regard to the
father's position in the matter and he apologized for his father in the best possi-
ble manner. But when asked to come forward and to take his father's place in
the matter, he delayed for a very long time. At last he promised to defend the
antiquity of the vowels not against Cappellus, but against Levita and his adherents.
This he did on account of the friendly relation existing between his family and
Cappellus. In this sense, avoiding to mention his opponent's name, Buxtorf, the
son, prepared his "Tractatus de punctorum." When, however, Cappellus se-
verely criticised two writings of Buxtorf Be Uteris Hebraeorum and Be primae
coenae dominicae ritibus et forma, and handled the author's name without gloves,
Buxtorf changed the form and mode of expression in his polemical work, and in
this altered form, he published it, twenty-four years after the appearance of the
"Arcanum" under the title Tractatus de punctorum vocalium et accentuum in libris

i Albert Pighius, a mathematician aad controversialist (born 1490 and died 1542), in his
Hterarch. Eccto. Aspertw, 1538, III, 3, 80, makes a similar statement: " Sunt enim illae (Seriptu-
rae), ut non minus vere quarn festive dixit quidam, velut nasus cereus, qui sehorsum, illorsum,
et in quam volueris partem, trahi, retrain, fingique facile permittit."

3 Cf. Kosenmiiller, I. c, p. 573.

168 Hebraica.

Veteris Testamenti hebraitis origine, antiquitate et auctoritate, oppositus Arcano reve-
lato Ludovici Cappelli, Basle, 1648. Cappellus answered in a rejoinder entitled
Vindiciae Arcani punctationis, which, however, was not published during the life-
time of the two opponents. 1 The latter work is found in Commentarii et notae
ertticae published in 1689.

As Buxtorf 's Tractatus and Cappellus' Arcanum and Vindiciae, are the main
works in the controversy, it will be worth the while to look at them a little more
closely. In favor of the late antiquity of the vowel-points, Cappellus adduces the
fact of the absence of the vowel-points from the synagogue scrolls. 2 The ancient
various readings of the sacred text called K'ri and K'thibh, have nothing to do
with the vowel-points but with the letters. 3 The ancient Cabbalists drew none of
their mysteries from the vowel-points, but all from the letters; for had they
already existed in their time, these triflers would certainly have made the most
extended use of them and discovered new mysteries. 4 Had the vowel-points
really existed from the beginning, why is it that the Septuagint, the Chaldee para-
phrases, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, or even Jerome read in so many
places differently than according to the present punctuation. 5 Neither Mishna
nor Gemara, 6 nor even Philo or Josephus 7 make the least mention of the vowel-
points. And surely, Jerome and Origen who had Jewish teachers would have
heard something of them if they had existed.

These are some of the salient points in favor against the antiquity of the
vowel-points. 8 As to Buxtorf's arguments, Cappellus divides them into argu-
menta artiftcialia and inartiflcialia, which he endeavors to refute in the second
book of his "Arcanum." To the argumenta inartiflcialia, Cappellus reckons the
testimony from Jewish writings, which Buxtorf the father derives from the Tal-
mud, Buxtorf, the son, from the Zohar and Bahir. 9 But to this Cappellus at-
taches little or no value, since the correctness of an opinion is not to be estab-
lished by testimonies but by valid reasons. As to the argumenta artiftcialia of
Buxtorf, the same may be divided into grammatical, historical and theological.
As to the grammatical arguments, Buxtorf lays great stress upon the fact that
it would be very difficult to read Hebrew without vowels. But to this it can be
replied that these difficulties did not exist before the exile, and even to this day
it is not impossible to read and to understand unvowelled Hebrew writing. If,
however, Buxtorf can prove that before the completion of the Babylonian Talmud
vo welled copies already existed, he (Cappellus) will be satisfied; but the proof
will never be given. 10 The historical arguments which Buxtorf derived from Jew-

1 Buxtorf the son died Aug. 16, 1664, and Cappellus, June 15, 1658.

s Arcanum I, 4. 3 Ibid. cap. 7. 4 Ibid. cap. 5.

6 Ibid. cap. 8-10. « Ibid. cap. 5. 7 Ibid. cap. 10.

8 Cf. Scbnedermann, Die Controverse des L. Cappellus mil den Buxtorfen (Leipzig, 1879), p. 53
sq,; Diestel, I. c. p. 337; Prideaux, Historical Connection (Wheeler's edition, 1865), vol., I. p. 303 sq.

9 Tiberias, cap. 9; Tractatus de punctorum I. 5.

10 Vindiciae II. 5; Arcanum II.

The Vowel-points Controversy. 169

ish history, which knows nothing of the work of the Masorites, are as an argu-
mentum e silentio of no consideration whatever. And as to the theological argu-
ments, they are very poor and superficial and without any value whatever.
Equally worthless he regards the assertion of Buxtorf , as if no one before Levita
had asserted the novelty of the vowel-points ; since long before him Jewish and
Christian writers have often expressed the same opinion. And it is rash and
inconsiderate, when Buxtorf exclaims : Eliam esse sententiae istius de novitate
punctorum parentem. Equally as foolish, Cappellus thinks it to be, when Buxtorf
calls him a revelator or novus propheta, as if he were the first to make the discov-
ery concerning the novelty of the vowel-points.

The result at which Cappellus had arrived may be summed up thus : 1) The
Hebrew vowels and accents were invented by learned Jews in order that even
unlearned Jews might be enabled to read and understand the sacred writings, in
case good and intelligible translations should have perished. 2) Although the
historical notices regarding the time in which the work of punctuation originated
are scanty, it cannot be doubtful that the Masorites were the originators of the
same, and this work came about not at once, but before and after (per gradus ac
momenta et plura saecida) the 5th or 6th down to the 11th and 12th centuries with
the help of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, who probably were the last redactors.
3) With such a view the authority of sacred Writ is not in the least affected; on
the contrary its sense remains firm and intact and sacred Writ itself preserved
from corruption. 1

1 Schnedermann I. c, p. 60 sq.— It is very interesting to learn the view of Richard Simon con-
cerning the Buxtorf -Cappellus controversial writing. In his Histoire Critique (p. 477) he remarks
as follows: " Cappellus has also published an excellent writing, entitled Arcanum Punctationis,
in which he tries to prove the novelty of the Hebrew vowel-points. This first work of Cappellus,
which was published In Holland, made a great sensation among the Protestants. They looked
at the appearance of the same with great sorrow, because it is entirely contrary to the principles
of their faith. Alexander Mnrus, who saw it before its publication, speaks in his De Causa Dei
seu exercit. de Script. Sacra of Cappellus as of 'limatissimo vlr judicio et undicumque doctissi-
mus,' and of his work as ' opus quantivis pretii, sed a multis zelo Dei flagrantibus etiam hie
Genevae reformidatam.' But he shows at the same time that this zeal of the Geneva Protes-
tants had no just cause, since he admits that Cappellus agrees with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli,
Fagius, Mercier, Drusius, Casaubon, Scaliger, Erpenius, Saumaise, Grotius and Heinsius; hence
Cappellus cannot be accused of introducing a new opinion, since he only proves with stronger
arguments what has been already accepted by the most learned and intelligent Protestants.
' Nee dubitem,' says Morus, ' quin ejus causa vicerit, si res Doctorum suflragiis et auetoritate
transigatur.' But most of the Geneva theologians were too narrow-minded and too ignorant.
Had they read the preface to the first French translation of the Old Testament made from the
Hebrew, they would have found that its author. Robert Olivetan, had fully treated this matter,
and that Cappellus had only more fully established his opinion.

The cause of thiB prejudice which is at present found so much among the German and
Geneva Protestants is to be sought in the fact that they blindly follow the opinion of the two
Buxtorfs concerning the correctness of the Hebrew text. Buxtorf the father, who had entirely
devoted himself to the study of the Hebrew language and the rabbis, endeavored by all means
to preserve the authority of the Hebrew text. Since Buxtorf was regarded as the oracle of the
modern Hebrew philologists, most of thern followed his opinion; since, however, they were not
able to investigate themselves such a complicated matter, they abided more by his authority
than by his arguments. What also helped his opinion to find favor among the Protestants

170 Hbbraica.

The consequence of this controversy was that Protestant Christendom every-
where was divided into two hostile camps. On the Continent as well as in Eng-
land both parties had their adherents. In England Cappellus was represented by
Brian Walton, while the Buxtorfs were especially represented by Lightfoot (f
1675), not to speak of Eulke and Broughton whom we have already mentioned
above. Lightfoot, the learned Hebraist, gives the following as his opinion :
" There are some who believe that the Holy Bible was printed by wise men of
Tiberias. I do not wonder at the impudence of the Jews who invented the story,

but I wonder at the credulity of Christians who applaud it And if you can

believe the Bible was printed in such a school, believe also all that the Talmud says.
The pointing of the Bible savors the work of the Holy Spirit, not the work of lost,
blinded, besotted men."i " These rabbinical scholars" (i. e. Eulke, Broughton
and Lightfoot), as a modem scholar says, " exerted a disastrous influence upon
the study of the Old Testament. "2

As has been already stated, Cappellus was represented by Brian Walton, the
editor of the London Polyglot. In his Prolegomena he speaks at great length of
the vowel-points and concludes by saying : vix quisquam sit solidae in Hebraico
doctrinae, qui a Cuppello differt s and Cappello consentiunt Theologi plerique, aliique
doctrina et erudiiione Hebraiea clariA For this and other assertions he was
attacked by John Owen (f 1683), who in his Of the Integrity and Purity of the
Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scriptures with Considerations of the Prolegomena and
Appendix to the late "Biblia Polyglotta," (Oxford, 1659) declared that he '' had
rather that this work of the Biblia Polyglotta, and all works of the kind were out
of the world, than that this one opinion should be received with the consequences
that unavoidably attend it." To this Walton replied in The Considerator Consi-
dered (London, 1659), p. 220 sq., as follows : 5 " For when at the beginning of the
Keformation, divers questions arose about the Scriptures and the Church ; the
Romanists observing that the punctuation of the Hebrew text was an invention

was the fact that it flattered the principles of the new reformation. Divine providence was
admired, which, according to their opinion preserved the holy writings even from the smallest
mistakes. But it was not understood that this so much admired providence had only its foun-
dation in the superstition and in the chimeras of the rabbis, with which the two Buxtorfs filled
their books. Cappellus, combining with the study of the rabbins also that of the ancient trans-
lators, went in an entirely opposite direction and proved clearly that the opinion of the elder
Buxtorf, which was also defended by his son, was only based upon the void imaginations of the
rabbis. In fact, Buxtorf' s refutation of Cappellus' work contains nothing but a vain Jewish
erudition, from which no inferences can be drawn."

1 These are his words: " Sunt qui punctata Biblia Sacra eredunt a Sapieutibus Tiberiensibus.
Ego impudentiam Judaeorvm qui fabulam invenerunt, non miror; Christianorum credulitatem

miror qui applaudunt et si punctata f uisse Biblia in istius modi schola potes credere, crede

et omnia Talmudiea. Opus Spiritus sancti sapit punctatio Bibliorum, non opus hominum perdi-
torum, excoecatorum, amentium." Horae Hehraicae et Talmudicae in qwittuor Evangelistas cum
tractatibus ctwrographicis singulis evangelitae sun praemissts, ed. Carpzov, Lipsiae, 1743, p. 142 sq.

3 Briggs, Biblical Study, p. 142. 3 Prolegomena edidit Dathe, Lipsiae, 1777, p. 130.

4 1, c, p. 207. ■ Quoted from Briggs, I. c, p. 145 sq.

The Vowel-points Controversy. 171

of the Massorites, they thereupon inferred that the text without the points might
be taken in divers senses, and that none were tyed to the reading of the Kabbins,
and therefore concluded that the Scripture is ambiguous and doubtful without
the interpretation and testimony of the Church, so that all must flee to the author-
ity of the Church and depend upon her for the true sense and meaning of the
Scriptures. On the other side, some Protestants, fearing that some advantage
might be given to the Bomanists by this concession and not considering how the
certainty of the Scriptures might well be maintained though the Text were un-
pointed, instead of denying the consequence, which they might well have done,
thought fit rather to deny the assumption and to maintain that the points were of
divine original, whereby they involved themselves in extreme labyrinths, engaging
themselves in defence of that which might be easily proved to be false, and
thereby wronged the cause which they seemed to defend. Others, therefore, of
more learning and judgment, knowing that this position of the divine original of the
points could not be made good ; and that the truth needed not the patronage for
an untruth, would not engage themselves therein, but granted it to be true, that
the points were invented by the Babbins, yet denied the consequence, maintaining,
notwithstanding, that the reading and sense of the text might be certain without
punctuation, and that therefore the Scriptures did not at all depend upon the
authority of the Church; and of this judgment were the chief Protestant Divines,
and greatest linguists that then were, or have been since in the Christian world,
such as I named before ; Luther, Zwinglius, Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Brentius,
Pellicane, Oecolampadius, Mercer, Piscator, P. Phagius, Drusius, Schindler,
Martinius, Scaliger, De Dieu, Casaubon, Erpenius, Sixt. Amana, Jac. and Ludov.
Cappellus, Grotius, etc. — among ourselves, Archbishop Usher, Bishop Prideaux,
Mr. Mead, Mr. Seldon, and innumerable others, whom I forbear to name, who
conceived it would nothing disadvantage the cause, to yield that proposition, for
that they could still make it good, that the Scripture was in itself a sufficient and
certain rule for faith and life, not depending upon any human authority to sup-
port it."

There were still not wanting some who defended the antiquity of the vowel-
points, as Joseph Cooper, 1 Samuel Clarke, 2 Whitefeld, 3 John Gill,* who wrote in
defence of Owen and against Walton, and James Bobertson, 5 but it must be

1 Domus Mosaicae clavis, sine legis septimentum in quo punctorum Hebraicorum adstruitur antir
quitas etc. Londinii, 1673. For the lull title see Rosenmiiller, I. c, p. 583.

a An Exercitation concerning the Original of the Chapters and Verses in the Bible wherein the
divine authority of the Points in the Hebrew Text is clearly proved by new and intrinsic arguments,
London, 1698.

3 A Dissertation on the Hebrew vowel-points, etc., Liverpool, 1748.

4 A dissertation concerning the antiquity of the Hebrew language, etc., London, 1767.

5 Dissertatio de genuina Punctarum Voealiwm Hebraicorum Antiquitate, contra Cappellum,
WoMonum, etc., prefixed to his " Clavis Pentateuch!," Edinburgh, 1770.

172 Hebraic a.

admitted that Walton's work decided the battle in England in favor of the
anti-vowellists.

On the Continent the Buxtorfs were followed by Wasmuth, 1 Aug. Pfeiferfi
Loescher, 5 J. G. Carpzov,* and others. 5 The latter like Gerhard made it a
matter of faith to believe in the inspiration of the vowel-points. All these — with
very few exceptions 6 — had entered the lists in support of Buxtorf, whose adhe-
rents in Switzerland exalted his views to a confessional article of belief in the
Formula Consensus," 3 so that a law was enacted in 1678 that no person should be
licensed to preach the gospel in their churches unless he publicly declared that he
believed in the integrity of the Hebrew text and in the divinity of the vowel-
points and accents. This was the first and only time in the symbols of the church
that the doctrine of verbal inspiration, together with the inspiration of accents
and points, had been asserted, thus making the Old Testament dependent on the
synagogue. 8 The vindication of the antiquity of the vowel-points shows a great
dependence on rabbinic traditions which had entered with the seemingly Chris-
tian interest into an alliance, which is still existing. In general it may be said
that criticism and research had confirmed the arguments of Levita-Cappellus
against the antiquity of the present vowel-points. This view was also held
during the 18th century by Cotta, 9 Vater, w and others, whereas the efforts of
Spitzner, 11 Bucher, 12 Clemm, 13 Tychsen, u lbenthal, 15 etc. 16 to prove the antiquity
of the vowels and accents, appear like anachronisms at the threshold of the 19th
century.

An intermediate course, proceeding on the assumption that there had been a
simpler system of vowel-marks, either by three original vowels or by diacritic

1 Vindteiae Sacrae Scripturae (being the third part of Hebraismus facilttati et integritati suae
restitutus), Kiel, 1664, against Walton.

I Critica Sacra, Lipsiae, 1688, against Helmont, Delineatto Alphabeti naturalis Ebr., Sulzbach,
1667; cf. Pfeiffer, p. 95 sq.

3 De causis linguae Ebraeae, Lipsiae, 1706 against Stephen Morinus (Exer uationes de lingua
primaeva ejusque appendicibus, Utrecht, 1694), p. 293. Loescher devotes also an entire chapter to
the " hostes Ebraismi" (p. 173-185).

4 He wrote against Wilh. Goeree Antiquitates Jud. I c. 3 in his Critica Sacra (Lipsiae, 1748),
p. 266 sq.

6 Mich. Walther, Leusden, Leydecker, Vitringa; cf . also Eosenmuller, I. c, p. 584 sq.

6 Theodor Hackspan (+ 1659) makes an honor able exception among Lutheran theologians.

7 Art. iv. can. II: " Hebraicum Vet. Test, codicem turn quod consonas, turn quoad vocalia,
sive puncta ipsa sive punctorum saltern potestatem deditvevoTov esse."

8 Briggs, I. c, p. 144.

9 Exercitatio Historico-Critiea de Origine Masorae Punctorumgue Vet. Test. Hebraicorum,
Tubing. 1726.

10 HebrUische Sprachlehre, Leipzig, 1797.

II Vindiciae originis et auctoritatis divinae punctorum vocalium et accenluum in Ubris Vet. Test.,
Lipsiae, 1791; cf. Eosenmuller, I. c, p. 582.

13 Beweis des Glaubenmrtikel, Jene, 1769.

13 Theologische Untersuchung, Tubingen, 1753.

14 Ueber das hohe Alter des hebrllischen Puncte in Eichhorn's Bepertorium III, p. 102 sq.

15 Beweis dass der Vrsprung der Selbstlauter u. Tonzeichen in der hebrUUchen Sprache gdttlich,
Hamburg, 1771.

18 See Rosenmuller, I. c, 580-587.

The Vowel-points Controversy. 173

points was opened up by Bivetus 1 and was pursued by Schultens? Job.. Dav.
Michaelis, 3 Dupuy,* Matth. Norberg, 5 Trendelenburg,® Mchhorn,'' and others.
But modern research and criticism have confirmed the arguments of Levita-
Cappellus against the antiquity of the present vowel-signs, and " so far as the Old
Testament is concerned, the theory of Buxtorf, Heidegger, Turretine, Voetius,
Owen, and the Zurich Consensus, as to vowel-points and accents, has been so
utterly disproved that no biblical scholar of the present day would venture to
defend them." 8

1 Isagoge seu Introduetio Generalis Vet. et Novi Test., Leyden, 1627, viil, 15,104.
3 Institut. linguae Hebr., Leyden, 1737, praef . p. 48, 62 sq.

* Vermisehte Schriften, Frankfort, 1769, pars 2.

* Dissertation philologigue et critique sur Us voyelles de la langue Hebraique in " Histoire de
l'aeademie royale des Inscriptions et belles lettres" etc. Tome 36, Paris 1775, p. 239-291 (German
translation in Eichhorn's "Repertorium fur biblische und morgenlandische Literatur," vol. II.
no. xi, p. 270 sq. under the title Von den Vocalen in der hebrtttschen Handschrift des Bieronymus).

5 Dissertatio de Hebraeorum vocalibus, Lund. 1784.

* Einige aus dem Hebraischen seWst hergenommene OriXnde far das ehemaUge Daseyn dreyer
Vocale in Eichhorn's Repertorium, xviii, no. II, p. 78-117,

' Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Gottingen, 1823, vol. I, p. 243.
8 Briggs, I. c, p. 156.